Thanks for this. He's incredibly funny. The video on why Palin needs to succeed at Fox was also great.

Time to go vote.

‘Smooth says it better:’

‘Further, she is asserting that regular people are better suited to govern than those elites. Therefore, we should vote for her because there is nothing special about her that makes her fit for governance’

I can't tell whether you actually think that's what Ms. O'Donnell believes and is saying, or if you're simply trying to undercut any potential empathy with her by slipping in a snide, guffawing fallacy of logic. But one makes you sound stunningly mindless and dehumanizing, whereas the other makes you seem threatened, defensive and passive-aggressive.

Either way, you display yet again just how ignorant, intolerant and self-righteous you truly are. You aren't interested in provoking critical thought; on the contrary, you seem to want people to fall in line behind your willfully ignorant, smug point of view. Good day.

I actually think the second video is much worse than the first one. He seem to argue that there should be an educated elite that make decisions for the stupid masses because we are not qualified to make political decisions. This idea that you should vote for the most competent/likable/trustworthy leaders and not for your preferred politics is something I really hate. That's not how democracy should be.

She contradicts herself in the first sentence (at least when it comes to me... a pagan).

If you want to know the qualifications for being President, a Senator, or a Representative, read the U.S. Constitution

Thank you for this! I really enjoyed it. ^_^

As I was watching it, all the problems with "I'm you..." that he didn't mention started to precipitate as well.

I’m you... I’ll go to Washington and do what you’d do.

I'm you... as long as you're not Black, Hispanic, or Asian.

Because I'm guessing that Christine O’Donnell's life experience would have been very different to the life experience of someone without white privilege.

I'm guessing that what Christine O’Donnells' policy priorities may be, might be very different to the policy priorities of a Black, Hispanic, or Asian candidate.

I'm you... as long as you're not disabled.

I'm you... as long as you're from the same class background as me (look at those pearls!)

I'm you... as long as you are anti-masturbation. (She has gone on the record saying that masturbation is adultery.)

I'm you... as long as you're not an atheist. (She's said that she believes the Genesis creation myth literally.)

I'm you... as long as you're not appalled by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. (This is the woman who said on July 24, 2008: "Biden would like us to believe that offshore drilling is an environmental catastrophe. But only 1 percent of the oil pollution in the sea is the result of oil drilling, while 63 percent is the result of natural seepage on the ocean floor.")

Populism isn't necessarily a "regular" person being in office, it is more about getting the most amount of voices heard possible.

In my foreign policy class, we were talking about this today actually.

The people that are elected sometimes have very different beliefs from their constituents about foreign policy. Support for NAFTA is an example. Most Americans, when polled, didn't support NAFTA, whereas most of the people elected when that treaty came about did. Of course, some people included in those polls might not have voted, and some of the people polled might not have been that enthusiastic about NAFTA either way, and the polls could have just had bad methodology but there might be something to the argument of "I will represent your class interests."
A lot of the Latin American "pink wavers" came to power because of populist arguments. Lulu Da Silva was one of those guys, and he didn't have any formal education, but he won, and his administration is seen by a lot of Brazilians as being successful, so I don't know if being having more formal makes a person more qualified to run government. Of course, if a candidate does not know that the constitution specifically calls for the separation of church and state, then there should be warning flags.

One would hope for a representative government to work for the people, but not be so naive and uneducated as to give us everything we want just because that's what we want. A balance is needed. Ideally, for example, no one would pay taxes if they didn't have to. A good representative would have a better grasp on economics than an average person and know that taxes are needed to provide programs we need and share. One person might say they don't want their taxes going for programs they don't use, like public schools. I don't go to public school, I'd say, and a good representative would represent also those who do go to public school and make me pay my taxes for them, because in the end, it's not about what I use, it's about everyone who lives near me and their benefits as educated young people coming up in the world, and keeping teachers employed, and keeping them from bearing the burden of buying supplies with their own money to educate children. I, a short-sighted citizen, might not think of the big picture, but I desire a representative who can and does, i.e. is better educated than I am, not a simple tax-slasher budget-conscious money-saver. He or she does not represent only me and my personal agenda of reducing my tax payments; he or she represents my whole community.

That said, some programs may be frivolous or cost more than they should. A common citizen might be really good at a family budget, clipping coupons and using things until they wear out, and imagines a lot of programs just fork over high piles of cash, and agree to the most expensive contracts without shopping around and trying to get the most for their money. Programs given a certain amount of money one year, but don't use the whole amount, will use the remainder so they can receive the same amount rather than ask for less next time. Certain programs like education are for the most part, agreed upon to exist but not how much they should cost (cutting parts out like arts, but not sports), while defense is also a given, while war and whatever it costs (just pay it!) is a good use of our taxes for some, but others think it not only wastes money but lives for no good end.

Ideally, a representative has a less simplistic grasp on these interests and their consequences, and doesn't just vote things up or down because the people would. I don't think we have anything like that, but it's scary to vote in someone who knows nothing and just has a simplistic view like most of the people he or she represents.

When Nixon nominated a mediocrity named Harold Carswell to the Supreme Court, a Nebraska senator said in defense of Carswell, "So what if he is mediocre? There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? We can't have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters and stuff like that there."

I find the SNL parody of this mildly amusing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mUn2c_PKho&feature=related

That guy looks like he trying to swallow an invisible baseball when he talks. Weird.